Consumer advocate article: "This is what happens when you're kicked off your cruise"

[cruisemom42]

 

I don't really see a problem with the cruise line giving priority to passengers who have booked ship-based excursions. It's a practice that happens quite frequently at tender ports, why not keep the groups together at docked ports? I rarely, if ever, book private shore excursions, but if I did I would certainly realize that I may be delayed getting off the ship and plan accordingly.

 

This is easily managed by ships by the simple process of having one gangway open for those going ashore independently and one that is reserved only for ship tours. Princess does it this way nearly all the time (unless port conditions don't allow for it) and it works very well. Tour passengers meet in a designated space onboard and then are led to the reserved gangway.

 

Even if two gangways aren't available, it shouldn't be a problem to keep groups together if they assemble in one location and then are guided to the line for exit.

 

I'm sorry, but I DO have a problem with this practice, especially when solutions are easily to hand...

[Falfurrias]

A lot of company apologist in this thread! Like a lamb to the slaughter, many just won't believe anything until it happens to them. Something I've experienced first hand.

 

While a company may take appropriate actions when dealing with these type of issues, they should be held to the standard of providing the appropriate proof that the action was justified. If they were unable to determine beyond a doubt that the Chan's were actually involved, a refund of their cruise would be appropriate.

 

While we don't know what truly happens, the real problem here is HALs response. While I haven't sailed with them yet, I doubt after the article that I ever will. As with anyone that may have been wrongly accused, I hope the Chan's are able to receive a just resolution to this issue.

 

In any case, Christopher Elliott is one of the good guys. He has helped me in the past in obtaining a resolution with a problem I had with a cruise company.

[Leejnd4]

A lot of company apologist in this thread! Like a lamb to the slaughter, many just won't believe anything until it happens to them. Something I've experienced first hand.

 

While a company may take appropriate actions when dealing with these type of issues, they should be held to the standard of providing the appropriate proof that the action was justified. If they were unable to determine beyond a doubt that the Chan's were actually involved, a refund of their cruise would be appropriate.

 

While we don't know what truly happens, the real problem here is HALs response. While I haven't sailed with them yet, I doubt after the article that I ever will. As with anyone that may have been wrongly accused, I hope the Chan's are able to receive a just resolution to this issue.

 

In any case, Christopher Elliott is one of the good guys. He has helped me in the past in obtaining a resolution with a problem I had with a cruise company.

 

NAILED IT!

 

Yes, Chris is one of the good guys. I've been a reader of his for many years. He and his team have also helped my sister and a good friend with their consumer issues. He's fair, reasonable, and strives to be balanced in his approach, giving the same level of credence to both parties in a dispute, always searching for the truth. He has zero tolerance for lying or obfuscating. The fact that HAL has refused to respond to his team on this issue is a huge red flag, given their history of working closely and fairly with him in the past to resolve passenger issues. He is well respected across many industries, especially travel since he spent most of his career focusing on travel.

 

We should all be grateful he is out there, available to help us should we find ourselves being treated unfairly by a company. I know if I ever find myself screwed over by a company, he's going to be the first place I turn.

 

And don't be surprised by the HAL apologists in here. It's par for the course on Cruise Critic. Some of the cruise line cheerleaders would happily publicly trash this couple's reputation (who allowed their identities to be shared, which says something in itself) than admit to themselves that their favorite cruise line might just have made a huge mistake.

 

I too am hoping for a fair and equitable resolution. Most importantly, I hope HAL eventually provides the video, even if it takes a lawsuit for them to produce it. If the husband did, in fact, push a crew member, then they should get no refund. But if, as they claim, they simply witnessed the scuffle and were not involved, and have been wrongly identified, then they are entitled to a full refund. Keeping my fingers crossed that the truth will come out.

[cruisequeen4ever]

Ok, so like some others have said, we really don’t know what’s true, butttttt I was thinking...If this happened when pax were disembarking in port, that should provide solid evidence of who “ding”ed off around the time of the incident, which would narrow their search of who it could have been. This is an odd case, though, with plane tixx supplied and the wife being kicked off, too. Hopefully we will hear an update later.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[grahamfam3]

HAL is not in the business of just booting revenue generating passengers. If they say he assaulted a crew member, then he most likely did. They don't need to show the wife crap. It's the husband who needs to speak up and admit to his wife what he did.

 

Sounds like sloppy work on the part of the ship's security, and the Captain not caring if they got the right guy or not. Rather than admit they accused the wrong guy much better to hunker down and deny wrongdoing. Just FYI, if Mr. Chan had assaulted a crew member, please explain why ships security at the departure point (yes, they are always there) hadn't taken him into custody and confined him to his cabin at the time? Answer: because they screwed up, didn't detain the individual, and then had to try to guess who it was who committed the assault later and guessed wrong. The Captain backed up his security staff's accusation rather than reviewing the definitely existing video due to either 1) feeling he or she needed to back up his or her crew once the after-the-fact identification was made and/or 2) not caring.

[grahamfam3]

On the bright side, there are a lot of judgmental people commenting who claim they won't be sailing with HAL. :)

 

 

Also a lot of judgmental people who assume that HAL got the right guy days later on a ship with how many people on board?

[OlsSalt]

Sounds like sloppy work on the part of the ship's security, and the Captain not caring if they got the right guy or not. Rather than admit they accused the wrong guy much better to hunker down and deny wrongdoing. Just FYI, if Mr. Chan had assaulted a crew member, please explain why ships security at the departure point (yes, they are always there) hadn't taken him into custody and confined him to his cabin at the time? Answer: because they screwed up, didn't detain the individual, and then had to try to guess who it was who committed the assault later and guessed wrong. The Captain backed up his security staff's accusation rather than reviewing the definitely existing video due to either 1) feeling he or she needed to back up his or her crew once the after-the-fact identification was made and/or 2) not caring.

 

Such clairvoyance. I am dazzled. And a new poster to boot. Sounds almost like a trial run for a trial.

[OlsSalt]

Also a lot of judgmental people who assume that HAL got the right guy days later on a ship with how many people on board?

 

No, it sounds like informed opinions from those who have experienced HAL professional onboard conduct. Though it is always interesting to hear from those who have no prior HAL experience too. Arguing facts not in evidence is the same as spitting into the wind, from the front end of a moving ship.

[OlsSalt]

Wonder if "maritime lawyers" show up out of now where post-incident to troll industry websites to accumulate anecdotal evidence? Could it be possible. :rolleyes:

[bEwAbG]

Sounds like sloppy work on the part of the ship's security, and the Captain not caring if they got the right guy or not. Rather than admit they accused the wrong guy much better to hunker down and deny wrongdoing. Just FYI, if Mr. Chan had assaulted a crew member, please explain why ships security at the departure point (yes, they are always there) hadn't taken him into custody and confined him to his cabin at the time? Answer: because they screwed up, didn't detain the individual, and then had to try to guess who it was who committed the assault later and guessed wrong. The Captain backed up his security staff's accusation rather than reviewing the definitely existing video due to either 1) feeling he or she needed to back up his or her crew once the after-the-fact identification was made and/or 2) not caring.

 

Just as likely that they didn't know at the time of the initial incident but conducted an investigation and made the determination after-the-fact. That they got the "wrong guy" is pure speculation on your part. People pleading innocence is not the same as being innocent. I can imagine this was an expensive cruise. Maybe the fuss is in hope of securing a refund?

[grahamfam3]

Such clairvoyance. I am dazzled. And a new poster to boot. Sounds almost like a trial run for a trial.

 

Not new to the board, if you pay attention you will note I've been on this website longer than you have. I normally read, however. And yes, you should be dazzled, I see your impression of the security services on cruise ships and raise it 30+ years in the US Army. You clearly have no idea how poorly trained and unprofessional they are. Clearly.

[grahamfam3]

That they got the "wrong guy" is pure speculation on your part.

 

No, more like logical inference. I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why the person wasn't detained at the time of the incident. Eyewitness identification after the fact is notoriously unreliable.

 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/11/22/statistical_issues_and_reliability_of_eyewitness_id_as_a_forensic_tool.kafadar.legalfact.pdf

[taxmantoo]

That they got the "wrong guy" is pure speculation on your part.

 

No, more like logical inference. I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why the person wasn't detained at the time of the incident. Eyewitness identification after the fact is notoriously unreliable.

 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/11/22/statistical_issues_and_reliability_of_eyewitness_id_as_a_forensic_tool.kafadar.legalfact.pdf

 

Maybe, because they had not committed a "crime" ? No need to commit a crime for the Captain, after consultation with Headquarters, to decide to have you removed from THEIR ship.

[OlsSalt]

That they got the "wrong guy" is pure speculation on your part.

 

No, more like logical inference. I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why the person wasn't detained at the time of the incident. Eyewitness identification after the fact is notoriously unreliable.

 

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/11/22/statistical_issues_and_reliability_of_eyewitness_id_as_a_forensic_tool.kafadar.legalfact.pdf

 

Indeed, eye-witnesses can be extremely unreliable including the alleged victim's recall of the incidence as well. Let alone third parties who were not even there. Which is why creating scenarios out of whole cloth are dangerous, and speculation about past experiences predicting future events are nothing more than that.

[grahamfam3]

Maybe, because they had not committed a "crime" ? No need to commit a crime for the Captain, after consultation with Headquarters, to decide to have you removed from THEIR ship.

 

According to the article, a crew member had been both assaulted, and battered. The extent of any actual injury was not detailed, but it was enough to have the individual assessed by a medical professional which means it can be reasonably deduced to have been more than a friendly hand on the shoulder. Assault is a crime, whether in Russia, the US, or international waters.

 

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

[OlsSalt]

According to the article, a crew member had been both assaulted, and battered. The extent of any actual injury was not detailed, but it was enough to have the individual assessed by a medical professional which means it can be reasonably deduced to have been more than a friendly hand on the shoulder. Assault is a crime, whether in Russia, the US, or international waters.

 

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

 

Yes, ....according to the article .... written by a remote third party who embellished it with that person's bias, but not according to any facts anyone here actually knows.

 

So now we have yet again morphed from the crew member reported to have been referred post-incident for medical attention ,..... to now an injury requiring medical treatment, escalated now to ......a "reasonable deduction" that a criminal assault and battery had been committed.

 

Beware of facts not in evidence. Thank you for recognizing the "extent of any actual injury was not detailed".

[grahamfam3]

So now we have yet again morphed from the crew member reported to have been referred post-incident for medical attention ,..... to now an injury requiring medical treatment, escalated now to ......a "reasonable deduction" that a criminal assault and battery had been committed.

 

Beware of facts not in evidence. Thank you for recognizing the "extent of any actual injury was not detailed".

 

You should read the link I provided explaining what the definition of assault and the definition of battery are. Someone doesn't have to have been severely injured to meet that threshold. In fact, you don’t even have to have been injured enough to require medical assessment. Also, I never said anyone was medically treated, I said apparently the crewmember was assessed. Attention to detail is important. Again, still waiting for an explanation why the person who allegedly committed such an offence was not detained at the time, and why.

Edited July 24, 2018 by grahamfam3
Word document ran words together

[Fouremco]

According to the article, a crew member had been both assaulted, and battered. The extent of any actual injury was not detailed, but it was enough to have the individual assessed by a medical professional which means it can be reasonably deduced to have been more than a friendly hand on the shoulder. Assault is a crime, whether in Russia, the US, or international waters.

 

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

HAL's written explanation to Mrs. Chan:

 

Your husband participated in a scene where staff members were verbally abused. This abuse became physical when he and another guest attempted to push their way off the ship in port at St. Petersburg. As a result, a staff member required medical attention.

Whether pushing past a crew member might constitute assault in Russia, let alone battery, really is immaterial. Just as a publican can throw a couple of fighting patrons out of his establishment without having criminal charges laid, the Captain of the ship in concert with the cruise line can remove passengers from his ship whether or not criminal charges might be viable. Whether anyone likes it or not, the cruise contract to which all passengers are party clearly gives the Captain very broad authority in this regard. I've underlined the final part for emphasis:

Carrier may without liability for refund, payment, compensation or credit, except as provided herein,

disembark or refuse to embark You, confine You in a stateroom, quarantine You, restrain You, change Your accommodations or disembark You at any time if, in the sole opinion of Carrier, the Captain or any doctor, You or any minor or other person in Your care during the Cruise, Land + Sea Journey, and/or Land Trip(s), are unfit for any reason for the Cruise, Land + Sea Journey, and/or Land Trip(s),

or Your presence might be detrimental to Your health, comfort or safety or that of any other person, or in the judgment of the Captain is advisable for any reason

.

Bottom line: if in his judgement the Captain thought it was advisable to put the Chan's off the ship, whether for the safety of others or for any other reason, he was entitled to do so.

[1ANGELCAT]

Not new to the board, if you pay attention you will note I've been on this website longer than you have. I normally read, however. And yes, you should be dazzled, I see your impression of the security services on cruise ships and raise it 30+ years in the US Army. You clearly have no idea how poorly trained and unprofessional they are. Clearly.

 

 

 

I can guarantee you that a well known poster on here is a very respected and most definitely highly trained Security officer.

Not sure how 30 + years in the Army equates to his experience.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[OlsSalt]

Not new to the board, if you pay attention you will note I've been on this website longer than you have. I normally read, however. And yes, you should be dazzled, I see your impression of the security services on cruise ships and raise it 30+ years in the US Army. You clearly have no idea how poorly trained and unprofessional they are. Clearly.

 

One would only hope security on military bases exceeds what is available and apprrpriate for cruise ships. Looking forward to your future discussions with Copper, our resident HAL security expert.

[OlsSalt]

You should read the link I provided explaining what the definition of assault and the definition of battery are. Someone doesn't have to have been severely injured to meet that threshold. In fact, you don’t even have to have been injured enough to require medical assessment. Also, I never said anyone was medically treated, I said apparently the crewmember was assessed. Attention to detail is important. Again, still waiting for an explanation why the person who allegedly committed such an offence was not detained at the time, and why.

 

You miss the point. You are relying on hearsay and speculation to build your particular case here. It is not the letter of the law that is in contention here. You are just making things up for reasons yet unknown. That is what is in contention.

[grahamfam3]

Bottom line: if in his judgement the Captain thought it was advisable to put the Chan's off the ship, whether for the safety of others or for any other reason, he was entitled to do so.

 

 

Fouremco, you are absolutely 100% correct. The Captain has every right to do so.

 

But that doesn't mean HAL isn't going to end up looking bad or in small claims court. United Airlines had every right to have Chicago Department of Aviation officers remove David Dao from Flight 3411, but look how that turned out.

 

Given the Chan's insistence on review of the video of the incident, I strongly suspect (can't prove Salty, you're right!) the wrong person was identified and ejected from the cruise. My current job is in the legal industry, and based on my personal experience guilty parties are generally trying to discredit physical evidence and get it excluded, not reviewed.

[grahamfam3]

You are relying on hearsay and speculation to build your particular case here. It is not the letter of the law that is in contention here. You are just making things up for reasons yet unknown. That is what is in contention.

 

You have exactly the same number of facts available to you that I do, yet you seem just as capable as I do to form an opinion?

[RedneckBob]

I object!

 

"Y'all are out order, this thread is out of order, everyone is out of order. I just completed my opening statement."

 

circa 1979, "And Justice for All", RedneckBob impersonating Al Pacino.

[grahamfam3]

One would only hope security on military bases exceeds what is available and apprrpriate for cruise ships. Looking forward to your future discussions with Copper, our resident HAL security expert.

 

So do I, especially an explanation as to why the individuals involved were not identified and detained at the time of the incident if it was significant enough to warrant a passenger being ejected from the cruise.

Edited July 24, 2018 by grahamfam3
Thought of more.